HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.TDR Code Aendment.0011.2006 r
THE CITY OF ASPEN
City of Aspen Community Development Department
CASE NUMBER 0011.2006.ASLU
PARCEL ID NUMBER CODE AMENDMENT
/30 - S • c a-�c-. f f •
PROJECTS ADDRESS TDR CODE AMENDMENT
PLANNER JEN PHELAN
CASE DESCRIPTION CODE AMENDMENT
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC COHEN
DATE OF FINAL ACTION 8.10.11.
CLOSED BY ANGELA SCOREY ON: 8.10.11
MEMORANDUM
M COP •
TO: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council n ��/�
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director V` A kilt
FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Senior Long Range Planner
RE: Code Amendment: Land Use Code Section 26.710.090 (10)(a) and (b),
Residential Multi - Family (R/MF) Zone District — Second Reading, Ordinance
No.27, Series 2006
DATE: August 14, 2006
SUMMARY:
Dan Coleman (Applicant), represented by Eric Cohen, has requested a code amendment to
Land Use Code Section 26.710.090, Residential Multi- Family (R/MF) zone district. The
code amendment has been sponsored by the Community Development Staff because Staff
feels the request merits a full discussion ( "Sponsoring" allows a private party to apply for an
amendment to the Land Use Code).
The code amendment being requested would allow a non - historic detached residential or
duplex dwelling on a non - conforming lot of 5,000 sq. ft. or less land one Historic
Transferable Development Right (TDR) of 250 sq. ft of allowable floor area. As proposed,
the landing of a TDR would not be available to a nonconforming use or structure. The
Applicant is requesting the proposed amendment because he contends that these smaller lots
are not conducive for the development of multi - family housing.
REVIEW PROCESS:
The Planning and Zoning Commission is the recommending body to City Council on the
proposed code amendment pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310, Amendments to the
Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map. City Council shall then consider the code
amendment and be the final decision making body. At a public hearing on June 6, 2006, the
Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the application by a four to one (4
to 1) vote.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The existing language that is proposed to be amended reads as follows:
Land Use Code Section 26.710.090(D)(10)(a) and (b), Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
a. Detached residential and Duplex dwellings established prior to the adoption of
Ordinance 27, Series of 2004: 100% of the allowable floor area of an equivalent -
sized lot located in the R6 zone district. (See R6 Zone District.) Receipt of a
Development Order shall constitute the date the use was established.
Replacement after Demolition shall not effect a new establishment date for the
purposes of this section. City of Aspen Historic Transferable Development Rights
shall not be extinguished in this zone district and shall not permit additional floor
area.
b. Detached residential and Duplex dwellings established after the adoption of
Ordinance 27, Series of' 2004: 80% of the allowable floor area of an equivalent -
sized lot located in the R6 zone district. (See R6 Zone District.) City of Aspen
Historic Transferable Development Rights shall not be extinguished in this zone
district and shall not permit additional floor area.
The Applicant's proposed language is as follows:
Land Use Code Section 26.710.090(D)(a) and (b), Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
a. Detached residential and Duplex dwellings established prior to the adoption of
Ordinance 27, Series of 2004: 100% of the allowable floor area of an equivalent -
sized lot located in the R6 zone district. (See R6 Zone District.) Receipt of a
Development Order shall constitute the date the use was established.
Replacement after Demolition shall not effect a new establishment date for the
purposes of this section. City of Aspen Historic Transferable Development Rights
shall not be extinguished in this zone district and shall not permit additional floor
area except in the case of a lot of less than 5,000 square feet. In this circumstance
an Aspen Historic Transferable Development Right certificate may be
extinguished pursuant to Section 26.535, Transferable Development Rights, and
shall allow an additional 250 square feet of Floor Area. No more than one Floor
Area increase shall be allowed per property. Properties listed on the Inventory of
Historic Sites and Structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area increase.
Non - conforming uses and structures shall not be eligible for this floor area
increase.
b. Detached residential and Duplex dwellings established after the adoption of
Ordinance 27, Series of 2004: 80% of the allowable floor area of an equivalent -
sized lot located in the R6 zone district. (See R6 Zone District.) City of Aspen
Historic Transferable Development Rights shall not be extinguished in this zone
district and shall not permit additional floor area except in the case of a lot of less
than 5,000 square feet. In this circumstance an Aspen Historic Transferable
Development Right certificate may be extinguished pursuant to Section 26.535,
Transferable Development Rights, and shall allow an additional 250 square feet
of Floor Area. No more than one Floor Area increase shall be allowed per
property. Properties listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures shall
not be eligible for this Floor Area increase. Non - conforming uses and structures
shall not be eligible for this floor area increase.
The Applicant has expressed that there are some lots in the R/MF zone district that are less
than 5,000 square feet that are not suitable for multi- family residential development.
Additionally, the Applicant purports that creating more lots that would allow for the landing
of a TDR would provide a community benefit by creating an additional avenue to aid in the
success of the TDR program. After working with the GIS Department, staff has identified, to
the best of its ability, a total of nine (9) lots in the R/MF zone district that would be able to
land a TDR (Exhibit B).
As proposed, only non - historic detached residential and duplex dwellings on a lot of less than
5,000 square feet would be allowed to land one TDR. The last sentence of the proposed code
amendment disallows a non - conforming use or structure from landing a TDR. Staff feels that
this last sentence should be considered for omission. The sub - section that the proposed
amendment is added to is specific to only a detached residential or duplex dwelling so the
language with regard to nonconforming uses is not necessary. Additionally, the prohibition of
a nonconforming structure from landing a TDR would prohibit a non - historic detached
residential or duplex dwelling on a lot of less than 5,000 sq. ft. from landing a TDR if, for
example, the existing structure did not meet the underlying minimum yard setbacks. The
Land Use Code's Nonconformities chapter would appropriately handle any new development
by allowing a nonconforming structure to be enlarged or expanded only in a manner that
does not increase the nonconformity.
The Applicant states that, "a nonconforming, smaller lot, is unfairly penalized with a 20%
reduction in FAR for a single family home, compared to that in the R -6 zone district." As a
point of clarification, a reduction in allowable floor area, at 80% rather than 100% of the
Medium - Density Residential (R -6) zone district, is only assessed on detached residential or
duplex dwellings when the use is established subsequent to the passage of Ordinance 27,
Series 2004. Any detached residential or duplex use of a lot that existed prior to October 27,
2004 is allowed to 100% of the allowable floor area of an equivalent sized lot located in the
R -6 zone district. Only newly established detached residential or duplex uses are permitted at
a reduced allowable floor area.
Staff agrees with the Applicant's suggestion that allowing these nonconforming lots to land a
TDR could potentially aid in the success of the program. However, allowing additional
square footage on a nonconforming lot of record contradicts one of the underlying premises
of how nonconformities are regulated. A non conformity can be a use (for example a triplex
that is in a zone district that only allows single - family uses), a structure (that does not meet
required minimum yard setbacks), or lot (that does not meet the minimum required size) that
was lawfully established but are in violation of the current terms and requirements of the
Land Use Code. The purpose of the Nonconformities chapter is to, "permit nonconformities
to continue, but not allow nonconformities to be enlarged or expanded." Additionally, the
chapter is designed to, "curtail substantial investment in nonconformities in order to preserve
the integrity of the zone districts and the other provisions of this Title (the Land Use Code)."
The ability to land additional floor area for a duplex or detached residential dwelling would
create additional, new investment in the nonconformity which conflicts with the intent of the
nonconformity regulations.
Another point to consider is the purpose of the Residential Multi- Family (R/MF) zone
district. As noted on the zone district standards, the purpose is to provide land, "for intensive
long -term residential purposes." The standards provide for larger floor areas when multi-
family residential development is proposed at higher densities and a reduction in allowable
floor area when new single family and duplex development is proposed. The Land Use Code
as written provides disincentives when development of new single family and duplex
development is proposed in the R/MF zone district and the potential for additional floor area,
by the landing of a TDR, conflicts with the intent of the zone district regulations.
Staff believes that although there is merit in expanding receiving sites for the landing of
TDRs, the proposed code amendment conflicts with the intent of both the Nonconformities
chapter and Residential Multi - Family (R/MF) zone district chapter. This also addresses a
very specific segment of properties in the R/MF zone district, which is typically not the goal
of regulations. For these reasons, staff does not believe the amendment satisfies all of the
review standards for approving a code amendment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council not approve the code amendment as the effect of the
proposed language would conflict with the purpose of the nonconformities chapter of the
Land Use Code.
The proposed motion is worded in the affirmative, reflecting a scenario where the
Applicant's request is granted. If the Council were to deny any the Applicant's request, the
ordinance, if seconded, would not receive a majority vote in the affirmative.
If City Council prefers to approve the code amendment, Staff would recommend amending
the proposal so that a TDR can only be landed on those lots that had established a detached
residential or duplex use on a lot prior to the effective date of Ordinance No. 27, Series 2004
(only allowing the amendment for Section 26.710.090 (10)(a)) and removing the last
sentence of the proposed amendment with regard to nonconforming uses and structures.
Ordinance No. 27, (Series 2006) would need to be amended by:
1) the deletion of the last sentence that states, "Non- conforming uses and structures shall
not be eligible for this floor area increase," of the proposed code amendment
language within Section 1 of Ordinance No.27 (Series 2006); and,
2) the deletion of Section 2 and the renumbering of the subsequent sections of
Ordinance No.27 (Series2006).
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve Ordinance No. 27, Series of 2006, approving the proposed land use code
amendments to Land Use Code Section 26.710.090(10)(a) and (b), Residential Multi - Family
(R/MF) Zone District: Floor Area Ratio (FAR), allowing for TDRs to be landed on a non-
historic nonconforming lot of 5,000 sq. ft. or less with a single - family or duplex structure
upon it in the R/MF zone district."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit B -- Lots in the R/MF zone district that area available to land a TDR
Exhibit C -- Application
Exhibit D -- P &Z Resolution of June 6, 2006
Exhibit E -- P &Z Minutes of June 6, 2006
EXHIBIT A
AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE CODE
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
Section 26.310.040, Text Amendment Standards of Review
In reviewing an amendment to the text of the Land Use Code or an amendment to the official
zone district map, the City Council and the Commission shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions
of this title.
Staff Finding:
Staff believes that the proposed amendment conflicts with the purpose of the nonconformities
chapter of the Land Use Code. The purpose of the nonconformities chapter is to, "permit
nonconformities to continue, but not allow nonconformities to be enlarged or expanded."
Additionally, the chapter is designed to, "curtail substantial investment in nonconformities in
order to preserve the integrity of the zone districts and the other provisions of this Title (the
Land Use Code) ". The ability to land additional floor area for a duplex or detached
residential dwelling would create additional, new investment in the nonconformity. Staff
finds that this criterion is not met.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the
Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding:
Staff does not believe that the proposed amendments are in conflict with the Aspen Area
Community Plan and would provide additional sites to land a Transferable Development
Right. The AACP section on historic preservation encourages the use of innovative ways
(such as the TDR program) to make preservation work in Aspen. Staff finds this criterion to
be met.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone
districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood
characteristics.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
Staff Finding:
These two criteria apply to rezoning applications and do not apply to this text amendment.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the
proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including,
but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply,
parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Staff Finding:
This criterion applies to rezoning applications and does not apply to this text amendment.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Finding:
Staff does not feel that the proposed code amendments will result in adverse impacts on the
natural environment. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
Staff Finding:
As was described in Staffs response to review Standard A above, the code amendment
pertains to only nonconforming lots of less than 5,000 square feet containing either a
detached residential dwelling or a duplex. Staff would question whether adding additional
floor area to a substandard lot is consistent with community character of Aspen. Staff does
not find this criterion to be met.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or
the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Staff Finding:
This criterion applies to rezoning applications and does not apply to this text amendment.
1. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
Staff Finding:
Staff feels that the proposed code amendment, although providing for additional TDR
landing sites, will conflict with the intent of the Land Use Code with regard to
nonconformities. Staff finds that this criterion is not met.
------- -
- -
_. ..
.---,
' V '
2 . /
f•-;:-.2. , i I :Pn 1/4.: ..----- -. , : '''''' - ‘‘ k‘‘ N„ -._ :.
4 Ai.
.,,, ,...,
4...„___
/-
4:t.„7/42 -4 447
. ..
2 --. -- r----------„,
-elitelte•.„
. ••
- --
4, ,a
. .,
\ <
- _ ° ■ i .-Zei , _....
........ .. ..
811 . 1 4111.
..
Ltik
/...,,,
. ,
- - ' I
, - 2-1,--Nr„-• 3
.
11 4. --, .: , .1-- - -- - ---- ' - P6-49ile.,
,
,:.,&,,, __
:47 , a
- 2 ...„ ttas- *Y: ' j ,,- , ' - - jb' rAkik- k
....... ,....
1 •
kkk.
4.
4- . 7-- -
y , 7
•iNi, ; - .5-45 . • - __ ' -Thsce---i_-__.4 ,,,-,_. —_, _ ,,„
- _ -47-, 4if ' a - • i - - -- . csri
"....* - ---e'' P-- _
'5
..,. 4.r..--.94 ',' 'kW k:, '- ' .'". 4
- 4.0:;,1
,
fi
-.. • P - i 414 7 1 7... , It ' *'. '
(
,.,„ „„t4-4 g- a *Ati • A t ttirtia,,, 4 kg' . ;
.*.A..& r--..:-....
.,-, 21", v ..t4 . '.
rid.7.1. L.,..,,,,,,, a auks ‘,....,.,.-
€ s ' ' ..,...,...4. .kig...,-/—„ ,i--------,
i .: , , ,, l ' , A . if .n _ 4. _ '- rt. 4' t '• -*----- - _
. - -
i ..: :•-• • .. , ,,'„'t• /.
- f ---; ..• i . AeA:9. '''''' '''''''‘`,f,....,.._ a 'VI ;,,-7,:j ' ::,''An VAtACA . AA _
-
_ .:-.tc,
• '4 h Ptis,ift C`1/441 40:j
- - " : '''l A-K,„Vi '., 4tV •^L • i "..
'''t 7
rit,,...... , ..V. i
i zt --- ir t7- 414,1:7:1 11:91,4::2; 1-2-
,,
,-- - - - ' - '''.- C Ac1,g-''■ 0 ' t 'la," 1 z-z-, s=2,- . , , ,,
are-77. . I a
aw
''
„ -
. -
/ 4, - - ,
r
To: City of Aspen Community Development Department
RE: Proposed Code Amendment for landing of Historical TDR's
Planning and Zoning Commission and Staff,
This letter is a request for a Code Amendment Change. Specifically, we would like to
amend the restriction on the landing of historical TDR's in the R/MF Zone district for
single family homes on lots of less than 5,000 square feet.
Currently the landing of Historical TDR's is prohibited in the RMF Zone district. The
intent being that the additional FAR is to be landed on single family homes or duplexes;
and that those types of uses are (rightly) discouraged in the RMF Zone. This is of course
based on a conforming lot size of at least 9,000 ft. in RMF. However, there are a few lots
in the RMF district that are significantly undersized, and not suitable for multifamily
development. In this case the owner of a nonconforming, smaller lot, is unfairly
penalized with a 20% reduction in FAR for a single family home, compared to that in the
R -6 Zone District. We would like an amendment to the Historical TDR program
that would allow for the landing of a Historical TDR on a lot of less than 5,000
square feet in the RMF Zone District. We feel that this would more accurately portray
the intent of the program, and provide a community benefit by creating another avenue to
help in the success of the TDR program. The additional 250 ft. of FAR, is less than half
of what is taken away with the RMF zoning, and arguably less objectionable than adding
that 250 ft. to the full FAR of a home in the R -6 or R -15 Zone Districts.
Rather than strike or eliminate current language in the code we propose adding the
following language to the end of paragraphs 10.a. and 10.b. of Section 26.710.090 The
R/MF Zone District:
"; except in the case of a lot of less than 5,000 square feet. In this circumstance an
Aspen Historic Transferable Development Right certificate may be extinguished pursuant
to Section 26.535, Transferable Development Rights, and shall allow an additional 250
square feet of Floor Area. No more than one Floor Area increase shall be allowed per
property. Properties listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures shall not be
eligible for this Floor Area increase. Non - conforming uses and structures shall not be
eligible for this Floor Area increase".
Thank you for your consideration of this issue,
Dan Coleman
1016 East Hopkins Ave.
ATTACHMENT 2 —LAND USE APPLICATION
APPLICANT:
Name: t6(1 GDAery ry
Location:
(Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate)
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name: "enc.
Address: L I\ c C L -* rn a Y° n
MQ Ca 8 l ( /
Phone #: m k9 tGY Za cc) &7c gco
PROJECT:
Name: Lord Ow-- Co Ror rdrte,.t
Address:
Phone #:
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
❑ Conditional Use ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Conceptual Historic Devt.
❑ Special Review ❑ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ❑ Final Historic Development
❑ Design Review Appeal ❑ Conceptual SPA ❑ Minor Historic Devt.
❑ GMQS Allotment El Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) ❑ Historic Demolition
❑ GMQS Exemption ❑ Subdivision ❑ Historic Designation
❑ ESA — 8040 Greenline, Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption (includes ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/
Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion
Mountain View Plane
❑ Lot Split ❑ Temporary Use ❑ Other:
❑ Lot Line Adjustment Text/Map Amendment
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.)
n/q
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
See A'1«GCre-ri ce- ceropos,ca Cocker 1 +�
Have you attached the following? \\ FEES DUE: $ t tb O, °%
❑ Pre - Application Conference Summary A
EZ' Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement
❑ Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form IN\
2 Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements - Including Written Responses to Review Standards
All plans that are larger than 8.5" x 11" must be folded and a floppy disk with an electronic copy of all written
text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application.
EXHIBIT A
REVIEW CRITERIA
REZONING
REVIEW CRITERIA
In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the Planning and Zoning
Commission and City Council shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable
portions of this title.
We do not feel this minor Code Amendment is in conflict with the underlying zoning.
Single Family home is an allowed use in this Zone district.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of
the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
We believe that this code change will allow for a better and less onerous distribution of
the 250 ft. of FAR, onto a property that has had it's FAR reduced by roughly 500 ft.
(depending on the actual lot size); which is consistent with the design objectives in the
AACP.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding
zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and
neighborhood characteristics.
There are numerous uses currently in the RMF; including Multi family, duplex and single
family home. Because of the diminutive size of a less than 5,000 ft. lot, multi- family
development is not practical. The FAR, and subsequent massing, will still be less than a
multi - family development in the neighborhood.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road
safety.
The additional square feet should have no negative impact on traffic or road safety.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in demands on public facilities, and whether the extent to which
the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities,
including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities,
water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical
facilities.
There will not be an increase in the demand for public facilities as a result of the
proposed request.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
We do not believe that the proposed minor code amendment application would result in
significant adverse impacts on the environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with
the community character in the City of Aspen.
Again, these lots are penalized for being nonconforming (too small) in size, to adequately
support a multi - family project; and a single family home with FAR that is still less than
what is allowed in the R -6 or R -15 zone districts is totally compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject
parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed
amendment.
Yes, the recent reduction in FAR for a single family home in the RMF (to promote
multi - family development) has negatively affected these smaller, non - conforming
lots. In addition the City of Aspen Histoprical TDR program has provided an
avenue to "buy back" a portion of that FAR, and in turn help[ support the TDR
program.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
We do not believe this would be in conflict with any public interest. In fact, by helping to
support the Historical TDR program, this amendment proposal would further the stated
values of the Community.
t ?ATM
RESOLUTION NO. tZ
(SERIES OF 2006)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL DENY TEXT
AMENDMENTS THAT AMEND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 26.710.090(10)(a)
AND (b), FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR), TO ALLOW A NON - HISTORIC
DETACHED RESIDENTIAL OR DUPLEX DWELLING ON A
NONCONFORMING LOT OF LESS THAN 5,000 SQ. FT. OR LESS LAND ONE
HISTORIC TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHT IN THE RESIDENTIAL
MULTI -FAMLY (R/MF) ZONE DISTRICT, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO.
WHEREAS, Dan Coleman represented by Eric Cohen has submitted an
application for an amendment to Title 26, the City of Aspen Land Use Code to amend
Section 26.710.090(10)(a) and (b), Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the Residential Multi -
Family (R/MF) zone district, to allow a non - historic detached residential or duplex
dwelling on a non - conforming lot of 5,000 sq. ft. or less land one Historic Transferable
Development Right (TDR); and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has sponsored the proposed
code amendment to be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council;
and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.310.040, the Planning and Zoning
Commission, in accordance with the procedures, standards, and limitations of this
Chapter, shall by resolution recommend that City Council approve, approve with
conditions, or deny a Code Amendment application, after considering a recommendation
by sthe Community Development Department and taking and considering public
comments; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing,
considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director and public
testimony on the proposed Code Amendment; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the Code Amendment
proposal does not meet or exceed all applicable amendment standards; and,
WHEREAS, during a public hearing on June 6, 2006, the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended denial of Resolution No. v2 Z Series of 2006, by a four to one
(4 -1) vote, that the City Council deny the land use code amendment to amend Section
26.710.090(10)(a) and (b), Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the Residential Multi - Family
(R /MF) zone district to allow a non - historic detached residential or duplex dwelling on a
non - conforming lot of 5,000 sq. ft. or less land one Historic Transferable Development
Right (TDR); and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission fmds that this Resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows:
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code,
the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that City Council deny the
following requested text code amendment to the Land Use Code Section
26.710.090(10)(a) and (b), Floor Area Ratio (FAR), for the Multi- Family Residential
(R/MF) zone district to a allow a non - historic detached residential or duplex dwelling on
a non - conforming lot of 5,000 sq. ft. or less land one Historic Transferable Development
Right (TDR) of 250 sq.ft., as noted in the following section:
Section 2:
Sections 26.710.090(10)(a) and (b), Floor Area Ratio(FAR), of the Aspen Municipal
Code shall be amended to read as follows:
Land Use Code Section 26.710.090(D)(a) and (b), Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
a. Detached residential and Duplex dwellings established prior to the adoption of
Ordinance 27, Series of 2004: 100% of the allowable floor area of an
equivalent -sized lot located in the R6 zone district. (See R6 Zone District.)
Receipt of a Development Order shall constitute the date the use was
established. Replacement after Demolition shall not effect a new
establishment date for the purposes of this section. City of Aspen Historic
Transferable Development Rights shall not be extinguished in this zone
district and shall not permit additional floor area except in the case of a lot of
less than 5,000 square feet. In this circumstance an Aspen Historic
Transferable Development Right certificate may be extinguished pursuant to
Section 26.535, Transferable Development Rights, and shall allow an
additional 250 square feet of Floor Area. No more than one Floor Area
increase shall be allowed per property. Properties listed on the Inventory of
Historic Sites and Structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area increase.
Non - conforming uses and structures shall not be eligible for this floor area
increase.
b. Detached residential and Duplex dwellings established after the adoption of
Ordinance 27, Series of 2004: 80% of the allowable floor area of an
equivalent -sized lot located in the R6 zone district. (See R6 Zone District.)
City of Aspen Historic Transferable Development Rights shall not be
extinguished in this zone district and shall not permit additional floor area
except in the case of a lot of less than 5,000 square feet. In this circumstance
an Aspen Historic Transferable Development Right certificate may be
extinguished pursuant to Section 26.535, Transferable Development Rights,
and shall allow an additional 250 square feet of Floor Area. No more than one
Floor Area increase shall be allowed per property. Properties listed on the
Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures shall not be eligible for this Floor
Area increase. Non - conforming uses and structures shall not be eligible for
this floor area increase.
Section 3:
This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operat8 as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Denied by the Commission at its regular meeting on June 6, 2006.
APPR I D AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMNIISSION:
City Attorney V Ruth Kruger, Vice -C air
ATTEST:
ackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
CITY OF AWEN PLANNING & ZONING C6MMISSION
Minutes — June 06, 2006
to 3 feet above the existing chimneys. Kruger asked for clarification on the heights
of the addition to the chimneys.
Skadron complimented the applicant on the improvement to the building but was
not convinced this was the only design that was eclectic in the community.
Skadron expressed concern for the height and would probably vote no on this
application.
MOTION: Dylan Johns moved to approve Resolution #21, series 2006,
recommending City Council approve the text amendments to Section
26.710.190(D)(2)(a) Lodge Zone District with conditions the Lift One
Condominiums and not to exceed the increase the height by three feet (3) for the
chimneys; seconded by Mary Liz Wilson. Roll call vote: Speck, yes; Wilson, yes;
Skadron, no; Johns, yes; Kruger, yes. APPROVED 4 -1.
Kruger requested that housing maintain the employee unit.
MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to continue the growth management review for
the Lift One Condominiums to September 5, 2006; seconded by Mary Liz Wilson.
All in favor, APPROVED.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CODE AMENDMENT — HISTORIC PRESERVATION TDRS IN THE
MULTI - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Ruth Kruger opened the public hearing for the Historic Preservation TDRs.
Jennifer Phelan provided the proof of notice and stated the applicant, Dan
Coleman, was represented by Eric Cohen. Staff sponsored this code amendment.
Phelan said the request was to allow non - conforming, non - historic lots 5,000
square feet or less with a single family or duplex residence the ability to land one
historic 250 square foot TDR in the Residential Multi- family Zone District (RMF).
Phlen stated the historic TDR was created by a person who owns a historic parcel
with floor area that they agree not to develop and it was turned into a TDR. The
intent of the historic TDR was to create an avenue for income generation for
historic property. Phelan said there were a number of historic TDR landing sites in
the R -6, R -15, R -15A, R -15B and R -30 Zone Districts, which were primarily
single family and duplex developments. Phelan said after working with the
assessor and GIS they found approximately Slots that could actually land these
TDRs.
6
CITY OF AS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Minutes — June 06, 2006
Phelan said the reasons that staff would not support this code amendment were that
these were non - conforming lots and the intent of the Residential Multi- family Zone
District was to encourage Multi- family but not to encourage expansion of non-
conformity development. Phelan said there were also merits to this code
amendment. Staff recommended that the TDR be added only to existing detached
residences that were conforming.
Ruth Kruger asked where Mr. Coleman's property was located. Eric Cohen
replied that Mr. Coleman did not own any of those lots.
Eric Cohen said that when the RMF language was rewritten as a disincentive to
single family construction in RMF it further encouraged multi - family. Cohen said
that realistically these were geared to single family or duplex dwellings. Cohen
said that this would help the historic TDR program because there hasn't been
enough demand for the historic TDR. Cohen stated that most non - conformities
were lot size and making a non - conformity greater would be to shrink the lot; he
did not believe that the non - conformity argument was relevant in this request.
Skadron asked the purpose of a non - conformity. Phelan replied the non-
conforming uses were uses that should not be in that zone district and non-
conforming lots of record were smaller than what was allowed in that zone district.
Phelan said the purpose of non - conformity in general was to create some
parameters that maintain and don't fall into disrepair and that at some point in the
future were replaced with a conforming structure. Cohen stated that a 3,000 square
foot lot for example should have the same rights as the R -6 land owner, which
allowed the landing of historical TDRs; this program would allow the buy back of
some of the area lost with replacement.
Skadron asked Eric what was envisioned by the end result of this code amendment;
was it larger houses on these lots. Cohen replied that they would get 250 feet more
as in the Cemetery Lane area.
Kruger said that she was still in a quandary as to why staff did not recommend
approval. Phelan responded that staff felt this had validity but the intent was not to
encourage additional investment in non - conformities.
Dylan Johns said that regardless whatever brought this code amendment before
P &Z right now the question still remains was this something that was wanted in
this zone district. Johns said that the disincentives were put in place for a reason
and it was a significant increase in the density by 250 square feet onto a 3,000
square foot lot. Johns did not feet this was a necessary code amendment.
7
CITY OF ADEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Minutes — June 06, 2006
Skadron agreed with staff on the conflicts with the purpose of further increasing
the non - conformities. Skadron stated this was unclear.
MOTION: Mary Liz Wilson moved to approve Resolution #22, series of 2006,
recommending City Council approved the proposed land use amendments to Land
Use Code Section 26.710.090 (10)(a)and (b), Residential Multi family (RMF) Zone
District: Floor Area Ration (FAR). Seconded by Dylan Johns. Roll call vote:
Speck, no; Skadron, no; Johns, no; Wilson, no; Kruger, yes. DENIED 4 -1.
Meeting adjourned at 6:45pm.
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
8
liter
MEMORANDUM Vi t1 J
TO: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Directo 'Y ° '
FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Senior Long Range Planner
RE: Code Amendment: Land Use Code Section 26.710.090 (10)(a) and (b),
Residential Multi- Family (R/MF) Zone District — Second Reading, Ordinance
No.27, Series 2006 — Continuation of Public Hearing
DATE: July 24, 2006
Due to the large agenda before Council on July 24 Staff has requested and the Applicant is
amenable to continuing the public hearing for the subject code amendment to Monday, August
14, 2006.
1 ,
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: nil ^A • r @ udAspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 7/7 , 200_
STATE OF COLORADO ) / j
) ss.
County of Pitkin )
r
I, �eidia r S L,146--17 (name, please print)
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen; Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable,
waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty -two (22) inches f ide
and twenty -six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters no
less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15 days
prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the day of
, 200 to and including the date and time of the public
hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15)'edays prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first clas postage
prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
n f
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in
any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision
of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such
revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use
regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other
sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and
addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall
be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public
inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing on such amendments.
r.
1 // .
A
/
attire
The fore oing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this May
of , 2004 b y . i Ll
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My commission expires: /4 /
PUBLIC NOTICE e
RE CITY CODE AM MENT TO A CERTAIN
SECTION OF THE USE CODE REGARDING . /
I RECEIVER SITES FOR SFERABIE DEVELOP - 1 �•
MENT RIGHTS otary Pub
NOTICE 15 HERE Y GIVEN that a public
hearing will be held on nday, July 24, 2006, at
a meeting to begin at 4:36 p.m. before the Are _ -
1 pen City Comte% Sister, City Room, City Hall, _ '
130 S. Galena St, Aspen, to consider an applica- _ A R
non submitted by Dan Coleman, 1016 E. Hopkins ' \
Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611. The applicant requests \1
i ' YA�
an amendment to the Land use Code to allow for / /
Historic Transferable Development Right Certi0- /
c fn sates to be received on a lot of less than 5,000 sq. • f `Q 1 '
ft. in the Residential Multi- Family (R/MF) zone
D . ` �� q 4!
district. This request would amend Sections --%
2E710.090 D.10.a. and b., Floor Area Ratio.
For further information, contact Jennifer Phelan O .0...,, a.
at the City of Aspen Comm ty Development De \\
partment, 1305. Galena St, pen, 00,(970) 429. �PY OPTHEPUBLICATION \�
2759.1ennifepbcl.aspenco ~���_ -�''
s/ Hele - Klandersd, Mayor
Aspen City Council
Published in the Aspen Tim Weekly on July 9, H OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN)
2006. (3869)
LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BY MAIL
P65
MEMORANDUM
VIII
TO: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council �
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director d
FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Senior Long Range Planner&
RE: Code Amendment: Land Use Code Section 26.710.090 (10)(a) and (b),
Residential Multi- Family (R/MF) Zone District — First Reading, Ordinance
No. l, Series 2006
DATE: June 26, 2006
SUMMARY:
Dan Coleman (Applicant), represented by Eric Cohen, has requested a code amendment to
Land Use Code Section 26.710.090, Residential Multi - Family (R/MF) zone district. The
code amendment has been sponsored by the Community Development Staff because Staff
feels the request merits a full discussion ( "Sponsoring" allows a private party to apply for an
amendment to the Land Use Code).
The code amendment being requested would allow a non - historic detached residential or
duplex dwelling on a non - conforming lot of 5,000 sq. ft. or less land one Historic
Transferable Development Right (TDR) of 250 sq. ft of allowable floor area. As proposed,
the landing of a TDR would not be available to a nonconforming use or structure. The
Applicant is requesting the proposed amendment because he contends that these smaller lots
are not conducive for the development of multi - family housing.
REVIEW PROCESS:
The Planning and Zoning Commission is the recommending body to City Council on the
proposed code amendment pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310, Amendments to the
Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map. City Council shall then consider the code
amendment and be the final decision making body. At a public hearing on June 6, 2006, the
Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the application by a four to one (4
to 1) vote.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The existing language that is proposed to be amended reads as follows:
Land Use Code Section 26.710.090(D)(10)(a) and (b), Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
a. Detached residential and Duplex dwellings established prior to the adoption of
Ordinance 27, Series of 2004: 100% of the allowable floor area of an equivalent -
sized lot located in the R6 zone district. (See R6 Zone District.) Receipt of a
Development Order shall constitute the date the use was established.
Replacement after Demolition shall not effect a new establishment date for the
purposes of this section. City of Aspen Historic Transferable Development Rights
shall not be extinguished in this zone district and shall not permit additional floor
area.
P66
b. Detached residential and Duplex dwellings established after the adoption of
Ordinance 27, Series of 2004: 80% of the allowable floor area of an equivalent -
sized lot located in the R6 zone district. (See R6 Zone District.) City of Aspen
Historic Transferable Development Rights shall not be extinguished in this zone
district and shall not permit additional floor area.
The Applicant's proposed language is as follows:
Land Use Code Section 26.710.090(D)(a) and (b), Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
a. Detached residential and Duplex dwellings established prior to the adoption of
Ordinance 27, Series of 2004: 100% of the allowable floor area of an equivalent -
sized lot located in the R6 zone district. (See R6 Zone District.) Receipt of a
Development Order shall constitute the date the use was established.
Replacement after Demolition shall not effect a new establishment date for the
purposes of this section. City of Aspen Historic Transferable Development Rights
shall not be extinguished in this zone district and shall not permit additional floor
area except in the case of a lot of less than 5,000 square feet. In this circumstance
an Aspen Historic Transferable Development Right certificate may be
extinguished pursuant to Section 26.535, Transferable Development Rights, and
shall allow an additional 250 square feet of Floor Area. No more than one Floor
Area increase shall be allowed per property. Properties listed on the Inventory of
Historic Sites and Structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area increase.
Non- conforming uses and structures shall not be eligible for this floor area
increase.
b. Detached residential and Duplex dwellings established after the adoption of
Ordinance 27, Series of 2004: 80% of the allowable floor area of an equivalent-
sized lot located in the R6 zone district. (See R6 Zone District.) City of Aspen
Historic Transferable Development Rights shall not be extinguished in this zone
district and shall not permit additional floor area except in the case of a lot of less
than 5,000 square feet. In this circumstance an Aspen Historic Transferable
Development Right certificate may be extinguished pursuant to Section 26.535,
Transferable Development Rights, and shall allow an additional 250 square feet
of Floor Area. No more than one Floor Area increase shall be allowed per
property. Properties listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures shall
not be eligible for this Floor Area increase. Non - conforming uses and structures
shall not be eligible for this floor area increase.
The Applicant has expressed that there are some lots in the R/MF zone district that are less
than 5,000 square feet that are not suitable for multi - family residential development.
Additionally, the Applicant purports that creating more lots that would allow for the landing
of a TDR would provide a community benefit by creating an additional avenue to aid in the
success of the TDR program. After working with the GIS Department, staff has identified, to
the best of its ability, a total of nine (9) lots in the R/MF zone district that would be able to
land a TDR (Exhibit B).
As proposed, only non - historic detached residential and duplex dwellings on a lot of less than
5,000 square feet would be allowed to land one TDR. The last sentence of the proposed code
amendment disallows a non - conforming use or structure from landing a TDR. Staff feels that
P67
this last sentence should be considered for omission. The sub - section that the proposed
amendment is added to is specific to only a detached residential or duplex dwelling so the
language with regard to nonconforming uses is not necessary. Additionally, the prohibition of
a nonconforming structure from landing a TDR would prohibit a non - historic detached
residential or duplex dwelling on a lot of less than 5,000 sq. ft. from landing a TDR if, for
example, the existing structure did not meet the underlying minimum yard setbacks. The
Land Use Code's Nonconformities chapter would appropriately handle any new development
by allowing a nonconforming structure to be enlarged or expanded only in a manner that
does not increase the nonconformity.
The Applicant states that, "a nonconforming, smaller lot, is unfairly penalized with a 20%
reduction in FAR for a single family home, compared to that in the R -6 zone district." As a
point of clarification, a reduction in allowable floor area, at 80% rather than 100% of the
Medium - Density Residential (R -6) zone district, is only assessed on detached residential or
duplex dwellings when the use is established subsequent to the passage of Ordinance 27,
Series 2004. Any detached residential or duplex use of a lot that existed prior to October 27,
2004 is allowed to 100% of the allowable floor area of an equivalent sized lot located in the
R -6 zone district. Only newly established detached residential or duplex uses are permitted at
a reduced allowable floor area.
Staff agrees with the Applicant's suggestion that allowing these nonconforming lots to land a
TDR could potentially aid in the success of the program. However, allowing additional
square footage on a nonconforming lot of record contradicts one of the underlying premises
of how nonconformities are regulated. A non conformity can be a use (for example a triplex
that is in a zone district that only allows single - family uses), a structure (that does not meet
required minimum yard setbacks), or lot (that does not meet the minimum required size) that
was lawfully established but are in violation of the current terms and requirements of the
Land Use Code. The purpose of the Nonconformities chapter is to, "permit nonconformities
to continue, but not allow nonconformities to be enlarged or expanded." Additionally, the
chapter is designed to, "curtail substantial investment in nonconformities in order to preserve
the integrity of the zone districts and the other provisions of this Title (the Land Use Code)."
The ability to land additional floor area for a duplex or detached residential dwelling would
create additional, new investment in the nonconformity which conflicts with the intent of the
nonconformity regulations.
Another point to consider is the purpose of the Residential Multi - Family (R/MF) zone
district. As noted on the zone district standards, the purpose is to provide land, "for intensive
long -term residential purposes." The standards provide for larger floor areas when multi-
family residential development is proposed at higher densities and a reduction in allowable
floor area when new single family and duplex development is proposed. The Land Use Code
as written provides disincentives when development of new single family and duplex
development is proposed in the R/MF zone district and the potential for additional floor area,
by the landing of a TDR, conflicts with the intent of the zone district regulations.
Staff believes that although there is merit in expanding receiving sites for the landing of
TDRs, the proposed code amendment conflicts with the intent of both the Nonconformities
chapter and Residential Multi - Family (R/MF) zone district chapter. This also addresses a
very specific segment of properties in the R/MF zone district, which is typically not the goal
3
P68
of regulations. Additionally, the amendment does not satisfy all of the review standards for
approving a code amendment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council not approve the code amendment as the effect of the
proposed language would conflict with the purpose of the nonconformities chapter of the
Land Use Code.
The proposed motion is worded in the affirmative, reflecting a scenario where the
Applicant's request is granted. If the Council were to deny any the Applicant's request, the
ordinance, if seconded, would not receive a majority vote in the affirmative.
If City Council prefers to recommend approval of the code amendment, Staff would
recommend on amending the proposal so that the TDR landing can only be landed on those
lots that had a detached residential or duplex use established prior to the effective date of
Ordinance No. 27, Series 2004 (only allowing the amendment for Section 26.710.090
(10)(a)) and removing the last sentence of the proposed amendment with regard to
nonconforming uses and structures.
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve Ordinance No. a-eries of 2006, approving the proposed land use
code amendments to Land Use Code Section 26.710.090(10)(a) and (b), Residential Multi -
Family (R/MF) Zone District: Floor Area Ratio (FAR), allowing for TDRs to be landed on a
non - historic nonconforming lot of 5,000 sq. ft. or Less with a single - family or duplex
structure upon it in the R/MF zone district."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit B -- Lots in the R/MF zone district that area available to land a TDR
Exhibit C -- Application
Exhibit D -- P &Z Resolution of June 6, 2006
Exhibit E -- P &Z Minutes of June 6, 2006 (to be included at second reading)
4
•
P69
ORDINANCE NO. AR
(SERIES OF 2006)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY 'COUNCIL APPROVING
CODE AMENDMENTS TO SECTIONS 26.710.090(10)(a) AND (b), FLOOR AREA
RATIO (FAR) OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE.
•
WHEREAS, Dan Coleman represented by Eric Cohen has submitted an
application for an amendment to Title 26, the City of Aspen Land Use Code to amend
Section 26.710.090(10)(a) and (b), Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the Residential Multi -
Family (R/MF) zone district, to allow a non - historic detached residential or duplex
dwelling on a non - conforming lot of 5,000 sq. ft. or less land one Historic Transferable
Development Right (TDR); and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has sponsored the proposed
code amendment to be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council;
and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.310.040, the Planning and Zoning
Commission, in accordance with the procedures, standards, and limitations of this
Chapter, shall by resolution recommend that City Council approve, approve with
conditions, or deny a Code Amendment application, after considering a recommendation
by the Community Development Department and taking and considering public
comments; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing,
considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director and public
testimony on the proposed Code Amendment; and,
WHEREAS, during a public hearing on June 6, 2006, the Planning and Zoning
Commission did not approve Resolution No. 22, Series of 2006, by a four to one (4 -1)
vote, and recommends that that the City Council deny the land code amendment to
amend Sections 26.710.090(10)(a) and (b), Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the Residential
Multi- Family (R/MF) zone district to allow a non - historic detached residential or duplex -
dwelling on a non - conforming lot of 5,000 sq. ft. or less land one Historic Transferable
Development Right (TDR); and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the code
amendments under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has
taken public testimony, and heard the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning
Commission and Community Development Director on , 2006; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Code Amendment proposal meets or
exceeds all applicable amendment standards and that the approval of the Code Amendment,
is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
Pagel of 3
P70
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this ordinance furthers and is
necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1:
Section 26.710.090 (10)(a) of the Municipal Code, which section set forth the allowable
floor area for detached residential and duplex dwellings when the use was established
prior to the effective date of Ordinance No. 27, Series 2004, in the Residential Multi-
Family zone district be amended to read as follows:
Land Use Code Section 26.710.090(D)(a) and (b), Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
a. Detached residential and Duplex dwellings established prior to the adoption
of Ordinance 27, Series of 2004: 100% of the allowable floor area of an
equivalent -sized lot located in the R6 zone district. (See R6 Zone District.)
Receipt of a Development Order shall constitute the date the use was
established. Replacement after Demolition shall not effect a new
establishment date for the purposes of this section. City of Aspen Historic
Transferable Development Rights shall not be extinguished in this zone
district and shall not permit additional floor area except in the case of a lot of
less than 5,000 square feet. In this circumstance an Aspen Historic
Transferable Development Right certificate may be extinguished pursuant to
Section 26.535, Transferable Development Rights, and shall allow an
additional 250 square feet of Floor Area. No more than one Floor Area
increase shall be allowed per property. Properties listed on the Inventory of
Historic Sites and Structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area increase.
Non - conforming uses and structures shall not be eligible for this floor area
increase.
Section 2:
Section 26.710.090 (10)(b) of the Municipal Code, which section set forth the allowable
floor area for detached residential and duplex dwellings when the use was established
after the effective of Ordinance No. 27, Series 2004, in the Residential Multi - Family zone
district be amended to read as follows:
b. Detached residential and Duplex dwellings established after the adoption of
Ordinance 27, Series of 2004: 80% of the allowable floor area of an
equivalent -sized lot located in the R6 zone district. (See R6 Zone District.)
City of Aspen Historic Transferable Development Rights shall not be
extinguished in this zone district and shall not permit additional floor area
except in the case of a lot of less than 5,000 square feet. In this circumstance
an Aspen Historic Transferable Development Right certificate may be
extinguished pursuant to Section 26.535, Transferable Development Rights,
and shall allow an additional 250 square feet of Floor Area. No more than one
Floor Area increase shall be allowed per property. Properties listed on the
Page 2 of 3
P71
Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures shall not be eligible for this Floor
Area increase. Non- confouuing uses and structures shall not be eligible for
this floor area increase.
Section 3:
This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof
The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this
ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 5:
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the _ day of , 2006, at a
meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers,
Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the
same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 26 day of June, 2006.
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen K. Klanderud, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2006.
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen K. Klanderud, Mayor
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
Page3of3
P72
EXHIBIT A
AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE CODE
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
Section 26.310.040, Text Amendment Standards of Review
In reviewing an amendment to the text of the Land Use Code or an amendment to the official
zone district map, the City Council and the Commission shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions
of this title.
Staff Finding:
Staff believes that the proposed amendment conflicts with the purpose of the nonconformities
chapter of the Land Use Code. The purpose of the nonconformities chapter is to, "permit
nonconformities to continue, but not allow nonconformities to be enlarged or expanded."
Additionally, the chapter is designed to, "curtail substantial investment in nonconformities in
order to preserve the integrity of the zone districts and the other provisions of this Title (the
Land Use Code) ". The ability to land additional floor area for a duplex or detached
residential dwelling would create additional,
finds that this criterion on" ' investment nt , the nonconformit Staff
n is not met.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the
Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding:
Staff does not believe that the proposed amendments are in conflict with the Aspen Area
Community Plan and would provide additional sites to land a Transferable Development
Right. The AACP section on historic preservation encourages the use of innovative ways
(such as the TDR program) to make preservation work in Aspen. Staff finds this criterion to
be met.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone
districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood
characteristics.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
Staff Finding:
These two criteria apply to rezoning applications and do not apply to this text amendment.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the
proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including,
but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply,
parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
5
/1
`./ p73
Staff Finding:
This criterion applies to rezoning applications and does not apply to this text amendment.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Finding:
Staff does not feel that the proposed code amendments will result in adverse impacts on the
natural environment. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
Staff Finding:
As was described in Staff's response to review Standard A above, the code amendment
pertains to only nonconforming lots of less than 5,000 square feet containing either a
detached residential dwelling or a duplex. Staff would question whether adding additional
floor area to a substandard lot is consistent with community character of Aspen. Staff does
not find this criterion to be met.
W. Whether there have been ch conditions affecting the subject parcel or
the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Staff Finding:
This criterion applies to rezoning applications and does not apply to this text amendment.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
Staff Finding:
Staff feels that the proposed code amendment, although providing for additional TDR
landing sites, will conflict with the intent of the Land Use Code with regard to
nonconformities. Staff finds that this criterion is not met.
6
III t P75
To: City of Aspen Community Development Department
RE: Proposed Code Amendment for landing of Historical TDR's
Planning and Zoning Commission and Staff,
This letter is a request for a Code Amendment Change. Specifically, we would like to
amend the restriction on the landing of historical TDR's in the R/MF Zone district for
single family homes on lots of less than 5,000 square feet.
Currently the landing of Historical TDR's is prohibited in the RMF Zone district. The
intent being that the additional FAR is to be landed on single family homes or duplexes;
and that those types of uses are (rightly) discouraged in the RMF Zone. This is of course
based on a conforming lot size of at least 9,000 ft. in RMF. However, there are a few lots
in the RMF district that are significantly undersized, and not suitable for multifamily
development. In this case the owner of a nonconforming, smaller lot, is unfairly
penalized with a 20% reduction in FAR for a single family home, compared to that in the
R -6 Zone District. We would like an amendment to the Historical TDR program
that would allow for the landing of a Historical TDR on a lot of less than 5,000
square feet in the RMF Zone District, We feel that this would more accurately portray
the intent of the program, and provide a community benefit by creating another avenue to
help in the success of the TDR program. The additional 250 ft. of FAR, is less than half
of what is taken away with the RMF zoning, and arguably less objectionable than adding
that 250 ft. to the full FAR of a home in the R -6 or R -15 Zone Districts.
Rather than strike or eliminate current language in the code we propose adding the
following language to the end of paragraphs 10.a. and 10.b. of Section 26.710.090 The
R/MF Zone District:
"; except in the case of a lot of less than 5,000 square feet. In this circumstance an
Aspen Historic Transferable Development Right certificate may be extinguished pursuant
to Section 26.535, Transferable Development Rights, and shall allow an additional 250
square feet of Floor Area. No more than one Floor Area increase shall be allowed per
property. Properties listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures shall not be
eligible for this Floor Area increase. Non - conforming uses and structures shall not be
eligible for this Floor Area increase".
Thank you for your consideration of this issue,
Dan Coleman
1016 East Hopkins Ave.
P76
ATTACHMENT 2 —LAND USE APPLICATION
APPLICANT:
Na
fl Cc \fin + y
Location:
(Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate)
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name:
Address: L-\X �. t> Ldl Aic . \\ CE3 8 t (o ti
Phone #: 9 n,-- G,'-�E "t?- -9 Ls, 9, c‘'() 2-S-- e& C G ,
PROJECT: p 1'
Name: • L6r d OW__ Qcck _ Rena Mme*'
Address:
Phone #:
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
1 ❑ Conditional Use ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑
Conceptual Historic Devt
❑ Special Review
❑ Design Review Appeal
❑ GMQS Allotment
❑ GMQS Exemption
❑ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment)
❑ Final Historic Development
❑ Conceptual SPA
❑ Minor Historic Devi
• Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) ❑ Historic Demolition
❑ Subdivision ❑ Historic Designation
❑ ESA — 8040 Greenline, Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption (includes
Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff
Mountain View Plane
❑ Small Lodge Conversion/
condominiumization) Expan sion
❑ Lot Split ❑ Temporary Use
❑ Other.
❑ Lot Line Adjustment Text'Map Amendment
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.)
1
nAl
I
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
' ci ' ke-Ae� a t, C Gae. {Nce,,*
1
Have you attached the following? 1 Ov
FEES DUE: $ t 35C, °"
``
1 Pre-Application Conference Summary !"+`d'
0 Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement
1 Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form to \iT
Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements - Including Written Responses to Review Standards
111 plans that are larger than 8.5" x 11" must be folded and a floppy disk with an electronic copy of all written
ext (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application.
P77
EXHIBIT A
REVIEW CRITERIA
REZONING
REVIEW CRITERIA
In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the Planning and Zoning
Commission and City Council shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable
portions of this title.
We do not feel this minor Code Amendment is in conflict with the underlying zoning.
Single Family home is an allowed use in this Zone district.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of
the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
We believe that this code change will allow for a better and less onerous distribution of
the 250 ft. of FAR, onto a property that has had it's FAR reduced by roughly 500 ft.
(depending on the actual lot size); which is consistent with the design objectives in the
AACP.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding
zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and
neighborhood characteristics.
There are numerous uses currently in the RMF; including Multi family, duplex and single
family home. Because of the diminutive size of a less than 5,000 ft. lot, multi - family
development is not practical. The FAR, and subsequent massing, will still be less than a
multi - family development in the neighborhood.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road
safety.
The additional square feet should have no negative impact on traffic or road safety.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in demands on public facilities, and whether the extent to which
the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities,
including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities,
water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical
• facilities.
There will not be an increase in the demand for public facilities as a result of the
proposed request.
•
P78
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
We do not believe that the proposed minor code amendment application would result in
significant adverse impacts on the environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with
the community character in the City of Aspen.
Again, these lots are penalized for being nonconforming (too small) in size, to adequately
support a multi - family project; and a single family home with FAR that is still less than
what is allowed in the R -6 or R -15 zone districts is totally compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject
parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed
amendment.
Yes, the recent reduction in FAR for a single family home in the RMF (to promote
multi- family development) has negatively affected these smaller, non - conforming
lots. In addition the City of Aspen Histoprical TDR program has provided an
avenue to "buy back" a portion of that FAR, and in turn help[ support the TDR
program.
I• Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
We do not believe this would be in conflict with any public interest. In fact, by helping to
support the Historical TDR program, this amendment proposal would further the stated
values of the Community.
•
•
P79
RESOLUTION NO.
(SERIES OF 2006)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND' ZONING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL DENY TEXT
AMENDMENTS THAT AMEND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 26.710.090(10)(a)
AND (b), FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR), TO ALLOW A NON - HISTORIC
DETACHED RESIDENTIAL OR DUPLEX DWELLING ON A
NONCONFORMING LOT OF LESS THAN 5,000 SQ. FT. OR LESS LAND ONE
HISTORIC TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHT IN THE RESIDENTIAL
MULTI -FAMLY (R/MF) ZONE DISTRICT, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO.
WHEREAS, Dan Coleman represented by Eric Cohen has submitted an
application for an amendment to Title 26, the City of Aspen Land Use Code to amend
Section 26.710.090(10)(a) and (b), Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the Residential Multi -
Family (R/MF) zone district, to allow a non - historic detached residential or duplex
dwelling on a non - conforming lot of 5,000 sq. ft. or less land one Historic Transferable
Development Right (TDR); and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has sponsored the proposed
code amendment to be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council;
and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.310.040, the Planning and Zoning
Commission, in accordance with the procedures, standards, and limitations of this
Chapter, shall by resolution recommend that City Council approve, approve with
conditions, or deny a Code Amendment application, after considering a recommendation
by the Community Development Department and taking and considering public
comments; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing,
considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director and public
testimony on the proposed Code Amendment; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the Code Amendment
proposal does not meet or exceed all applicable amendment standards; and,
WHEREAS, during a public hearing on June 6, 2006, the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended denial of Resolution No , Series of 2006, by a four to one
(4 -1) vote, that the City Council deny the land use code amendment to amend Section
26.710.090(10)(a) and (b), Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the Residential Multi- Family
(R/MF) zone district to allow a non - historic detached residential or duplex dwelling on a
non - conforming lot of 5,000 sq. ft. or less land one Historic Transferable Development
Right (TDR); and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
r
P80
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows:
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code,
the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that City Council deny the
following requested text code amendment to the Land Use Code Section
26.710.090(10)(a) and (b), Floor Area Ratio (FAR), for the Multi - Family Residential
(R/MF) zone district to a allow a non - historic detached residential or duplex dwelling on
a non - conforming lot of 5,000 sq. ft. or less land one Historic Transferable Development
Right (TDR) of 250 sq.ft., as noted in the following section:
Section 2:
Sections 26.710.090(10)(a) and (b), Floor Area Ratio(FAR), of the Aspen Municipal
Code shall be amended to read as follows:
Land Use Code Section 26.710.090(D)(a) and (b), Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
a. Detached residential and Duplex dwellings established prior to the adoption of
Ordinance 27, Series of 2004: 100% of the allowable floor area of an
equivalent -sized lot located in the R6 zone district. (See R6 Zone District.)
Receipt of a Development Order shall constitute the date the use was
established. Replacement after Demolition shall not effect a new
establishment date for the purposes of this section. City of Aspen Historic
Transferable Development Rights shall not be extinguished in this zone
district and shall not permit additional floor area except in the case of a lot of
less than 5,000 square feet. In this circumstance an Aspen Historic
Transferable Development Right certificate may be extinguished pursuant to
Section 26.535, Transferable Development Rights, and shall allow an
additional 250 square feet of Floor Area. No more than one Floor Area
increase shall be allowed per property. Properties listed on the Inventory of
Historic Sites and Structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area increase.
Non - conforming uses and structures shall not be eligible for this floor area
increase.
b. Detached residential and Duplex dwellings established after the adoption of
Ordinance 27, Series of 2004: 80% of the allowable floor area of an
equivalent -sized lot located in the R6 zone district. (See R6 Zone District)
City of Aspen Historic Transferable Development Rights shall not be
extinguished in this zone district and shall not permit additional floor area
except in the case of a lot of less than 5,000 square feet. In this circumstance
an Aspen Historic Transferable Development Right certificate may be
extinguished pursuant to Section 26.535, Transferable Development Rights,
and shall allow an additional 250 square feet of Floor Area. No more than one
Floor Area increase shall be allowed per property. Properties listed on the
Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures shall not be eligible for this Floor
Area increase. Non - conforming uses and structures shall not be eligible for
this floor area increase.
. P81
Section 3:
This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Approved by the Commission at its regular meeting on June 6, 2006.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
=. e '�, °y ...
r !►` ...
,... ,
. , / • ...„ .
p „, ,,...... i ,,, , ,,,,,, y
=v � `'� 9 w.�� - t =' ,.
• -,.,----.„ ,.- . ,.
., . , „.,,
. , 0./ .,.._„..,
. , ,
„...._
t r �r 4 , _ ` 4� <� s , ^ '+ fi r '
/ min '” i �"\,
, .L° a A • F, _ d r Y1
P 9 y� `"..,, v.
I
�i N.,
.. „ ' *
- ."-... r 1. _ _ ,'`^"'„^ -.. : _ ` l .\ mss. •
, '''''Ii•,, -, ./:. " ;-,T ' - --,
f
e
y ; . ;, a
....--....._:..--.--. ---ii • ffrAtitliz,, •,,. 7.,,--717c .....
- r„-.,.,•7 14;4-0,:,EX .7
= , ..v7r , vry , -- .... ,.._
____74., " iz �`' t er 'ms`s 4,44-4,:' ', ,-
�. a[ ,,yam a
• i
w .
°.-:--; ' ' , 1°',' ',-' / I/ 4:0,:,,' ,--:',.:::....,1"-,-,,,,-,,,,,,,.
P ' re,d- ..:f
i .,::."..1.6::$1;,4,,,,1:4:14:,,z.:411:::::::-.1.;:.4.74::,;:':': al -- ; ,,. ' : 1 ,
r
1 � �+°�' +,. . � � , .." �. 'rte. All e.
�.
i t: l I A
' 4 '' . __(>(.:-` . . ' -''
,.: ti .:'''''' /411 • i
ii;.:,•;:a : -tit '`--. ':i
sae . ' ^.� ..:01--g. -#:0,1; .;.. '47-,..::;:iir? , . •,
..r.,...,_ ...,....„4„,, . --....„:„,„...,,,,,,„..,,i art.__ ..,..,_ LI.pd,"4 4-' — -0 -- ' — •
Page 1 of 2
Jennifer Phelan
From: Eric Cohen [echomes @sopris.netj
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 3:06 PM
To: Jennifer Phelan
Cc: James Lindt; Chris Bendon
Subject: proposed amendment to Land Use Code Section2.710.090
Jennifer,
As Friday was the first time we were able to meet on the Code Amendment proposal that we have up for
tomorrow; I'd like to address the Planning Staff's assessment of our proposal. I have cc'd James and
Chris only because I happen to have their emails, and had hoped Staff might reconsider their
recommendation.
In reviewing the Memorandum and Staff's recommendation I'd like to reiterate a few points from
Friday:
1. The suggestion for the Language Amendment comes from a "use" perspective. We all know that
when writing these codes it is impossible to come up-with every situation that might arise from the
code down the line. It is not unusual for a scenario to come to light when trying to work with the
code in the real world.
2. I think most reasonable people would agree that a Lot of less than 5,000 ft. is not suitable for Multi-
family development.
3. FAR for Multi - Family development in RMF is between 30 -50% greater than the Single - Family
FAR (somewhat dwarfing any single - family dwelling).
4. A further reduction in FAR by 20% for new single family structures in RMF just further penalizes
these folks who happen to have diminutive size lots in this Zone district.
5. Allowing for an additional 250' of FAR onto an existing or proposed to be built home in this
situation either brings the previous existing home to an equal footing with property owners in the R -6
district; OR allows for the new home builder to recoup LESS THAN HALF of the FAR they lost with
the 20% reduction.
The RMF language as written was designed to greatly disincentify single family dwellings in RMF, and
rightly so This proposed language does nothing to change that. It simply addresses an unfairness that
exists on these very small lots. Additionally it helps to promote a program that has still not gotten off
the ground, the Historical TDR's.
In summation, I think this is a fairly innocuous request; in that there is no down side to the City, an ' Q _
upside for the TDR program; as well as some fairness being allocated on these small lot owners. r
•
6/6/2006
Page 2 of 2
I would ask you to reconsider your recommendation.
Thanks for all your time and hard work,
Eric R. Cohen
Morris & Fyrwald Real Estate
415 East Hyman Ave., Suite 101
Aspen, CO 81611 -1945
970 -429 -3773 Office
970 -948 -3288 Cell
970- 925 -3138 Fax
www.EricCohenProperties.com
6/6/2006
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Joyce Allgaier, Community Development Deputy Director
FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Senior Long Range Planner&
RE: Code Amendment: Land Use Code Section 26.710.090 (10)(a) and (b),
Residential Multi- Family (R/MF) Zone District — Public Hearing
DATE: June 6, 2006
SUMMARY:
Dan Coleman (Applicant), represented by Eric Cohen, has requested a code amendment to
Land Use Code Section 26.710.090, Residential Multi- Family (R/MF) zone district. The code
amendment has been sponsored by the Community Development Staff because Staff feels the
request merits a full discussion.
The code amendment being requested would allow a non - historic detached residential or
duplex dwelling on a non - conforming lot of 5,000 sq. ft. or less land one Historic
Transferable Development Right (TDR) of 250 sq. ft of allowable floor area. As proposed,
the landing of a TDR would not be available to a nonconforming use or structure. The
Applicant is requesting the proposed amendment because he contends that these smaller lots
are not conducive for the development of multi - family housing.
REVIEW PROCESS:
The Planning and Zoning Commission shall be the recommending body to City Council on
the proposed code amendment pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310, Amendments to
the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The existing language that is proposed to be amended reads as follows:
Land Use Code Section 26.710.090(D)(10)(a) and (b), Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
a. Detached residential and Duplex dwellings established prior to the adoption of
Ordinance 27, Series of 2004: 100% of the allowable floor area of an equivalent -
sized lot located in the R6 zone district. (See R6 Zone District.) Receipt of a
Development Order shall constitute the date the use was established.
Replacement after Demolition shall not effect a new establishment date for the
purposes of this section. City of Aspen Historic Transferable Development Rights
shall not be extinguished in this zone district and shall not permit additional floor
area.
b. Detached residential and Duplex dwellings established after the adoption of
Ordinance 27, Series of 2004: 80% of the allowable floor area of an equivalent -
sized lot located in the R6 zone district. (See R6 Zone District.) City of Aspen
Historic Transferable Development Rights shall not be extinguished in this zone
district and shall not permit additional floor area.
The Applicant's proposed language is as follows:
Land Use Code Section 26.710.090(D)(a) and (b), Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
a. Detached residential and Duplex dwellings established prior to the adoption of
Ordinance 27, Series of 2004: 100% of the allowable floor area of an equivalent-
sized lot located in the R6 zone district. (See R6 Zone District.) Receipt of a
Development Order shall constitute the date the use was established.
Replacement after Demolition shall not effect a new establishment date for the
purposes of this section. City of Aspen Historic Transferable Development Rights
shall not be extinguished in this zone district and shall not permit additional floor
area except in the case of a lot of less than 5,000 square feet. In this circumstance
an Aspen Historic Transferable Development Right certificate may be
extinguished pursuant to Section 26.535, Transferable Development Rights, and
shall allow an additional 250 square feet of Floor Area. No more than one Floor
Area increase shall be allowed per property. Properties listed on the Inventory of
Historic Sites and Structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area increase.
Non - conforming uses and structures shall not be eligible for this floor area
increase.
b. Detached residential and Duplex dwellings established after the adoption of
Ordinance 27, Series of 2004: 80% of the allowable floor area of an equivalent -
sized lot located in the R6 zone district. (See R6 Zone District.) City of Aspen
Historic Transferable Development Rights shall not be extinguished in this zone
district and shall not permit additional floor area except in the case of a lot of less
than 5,000 square feet. In this circumstance an Aspen Historic Transferable
Development Right certificate may be extinguished pursuant to Section 26.535,
Transferable Development Rights, and shall allow an additional 250 square feet
of Floor Area. No more than one Floor Area increase shall be allowed per
property. Properties listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures shall
not be eligible for this Floor Area increase. Non - conforming uses and structures
shall not be eligible for this floor area increase.
The Applicant has expressed that there are some lots in the R/MF zone district that are Less
than 5,000 square feet and feels that they are not suitable for multi - family residential
development. Additionally, the Applicant purports that creating more lots that would allow
for the landing of a TDR would provide a community benefit by creating an additional
avenue to aid in the success of the TDR program.
As proposed, only non - historic detached residential and duplex dwellings on a lot of less than
5,000 square feet would be allowed to land one TDR. The last sentence of the proposed code
amendment disallows a non - conforming use or structure from landing a TDR. Staff feels that
this last sentence should be considered for omission. The sub - section that the proposed
amendment is added to is specific to only a detached residential or duplex dwelling so the
language with regard to nonconforming uses is not necessary. Additionally, the prohibition of
a nonconforming structure would prohibit a non - historic detached residential or duplex
2
dwelling on a lot of less than 5,000 sq. ft. from landing a TDR if, for example, the structure
did not meet the underlying minimum setbacks. Staff is unsure if this was the Applicant's
intent and feels that the Land Use Code's Nonconformities chapter, would appropriately
handle any new development. By allowing, a nonconforming structure to be enlarged or
expanded in a manner that does not increase the nonconformity.
The Applicant states that, "a nonconforming, smaller lot, is unfairly penalized with a 20%
reduction in FAR for a single family home, compared to that in the R -6 zone district." As a
point of clarification, a reduction in allowable floor area, at 80% rather than 100% of the
Medium- Density Residential (R -6) zone district, is only assessed on detached residential or
duplex dwellings when the use is established subsequent to the passage of Ordinance 27,
Series 2004. Any detached residential or duplex use of a lot that existed prior to October 27,
2004 is allowed to 100% of the allowable floor area of an equivalent sized lot located in the
R -6 zone district. Only newly established detached residential or duplex uses are permitted at
a reduced allowable floor area.
Staff agrees with the Applicant's suggestion that allowing these nonconforming lots to land a
TDR could potentially aid in the success of the program. However, allowing additional
square footage on a nonconforming lot of record contradicts one of the underlying premises
of how nonconformities are regulated. The purpose of the Nonconformities chapter is to,
"permit nonconformities to continue, but not allow nonconformities to be enlarged or
expanded." Additionally, the chapter is designed to, "curtail substantial investment in
nonconformities in order to preserve the integrity of the zone districts and the other
provisions of this Title (the Land Use Code)." The ability to land additional floor area for a
duplex or detached residential dwelling would create additional, new investment in the
nonconformity which conflicts with the intent of the nonconformity regulations.
Another point to consider is the purpose of the Residential Multi - Family (R/MF) zone
district. As noted on the zone district standards, the purpose is to provide land, "for intensive
long -term residential purposes." The standards provide for larger floor areas when multi-
family residential development is proposed at higher densities and a reduction in allowable
floor area when new single family and duplex development is proposed. The Land Use Code
as written provides disincentives when development of new single family and duplex
development is proposed in the R/MF zone district and the potential for additional floor area,
by the landing of a TDR, conflicts with the intent of the zone district regulations.
Staff believes that although there is merit in expanding receiving sites for the landing of
TDRs, the proposed code amendment conflicts with the intent of both the Nonconformities
chapter and Residential Multi - Family (R/MF) zone district chapter. This also addresses a
very specific segment of properties in the R/MF zone district, which is typically not the goal
of regulations. Additionally, the amendment does not satisfy all of the review standards for
approving a code amendment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission not recommend approval of the
code amendment as the effect of the proposed language would conflict with the purpose of
the nonconformities chapter of the Land Use Code.
3
"Th
The proposed resolution is worded in the affirmative, reflecting a scenario where the
Applicant's is granted. If the Commission were to deny any the Applicant's request, the
resolution, if seconded, would not receive a majority vote in the affirmative.
If the Planning and Zoning Commission prefers to recommend approval of the code
amendment, Staff would recommend on amending the proposal so that the TDR landing can
only be landed on those lots that had a detached residential or duplex use established prior to
the effective date of Ordinance No. 27, Series 2004 (only allowing the amendment for
Section 26.710.090 (10)(a)) and removing the last sentence of the proposed amendment with
regard to nonconforming uses and structures.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: �^
"I move to approve Resolution No. Cg0'1 Series of 2006, recommending that City Council
approve the proposed land use code amendments to Land Use Code Section
26.710.090(10)(a) and (b), Residential Multi- Family (R/MF) Zone District: Floor Area Ratio
(FAR), allowing ."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit B -- Application
4
RESOLUTION NO.fr
(SERIES OF 200
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL APPROVE TEXT
AMENDMENTS THAT AMEND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 26.710.090(10)(a)
AND (b), FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR), TO ALLOW A NON - HISTORIC
DETACHED RESIDENTIAL OR DUPLEX DWELLING ON A
NONCONFORMING LOT OF LESS THAN 5,000 SQ. FT. OR LESS LAND ONE
HISTORIC TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHT IN THE RESIDENTIAL
MULTI -FAMLY (R/MF) ZONE DISTRICT, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO.
WHEREAS, Dan Coleman represented by Eric Cohen has submitted an
application for an amendment to Title 26, the City of Aspen Land Use Code to amend
Section 26.710.090(10)(a) and (b), Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the Residential Multi -
Family (R/MF) zone district, to allow a non - historic detached residential or duplex
dwelling on a non - conforming lot of 5,000 sq. ft. or less land one Historic Transferable
Development Right (TDR); and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has sponsored the proposed
code amendment to be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council;
and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.310.040, the Planning and Zoning
Commission, in accordance with the procedures, standards, and limitations of this
Chapter, shall by resolution recommend that City Council approve, approve with
conditions, or deny a Code Amendment application, after considering a recommendation
by the Community Development Department and taking and considering public
comments; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing,
considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director and public
testimony on the proposed Code Amendment; and,
WHEREAS, during a public he ng on June 6, 2006, the Planning and Zoning
Commission approved Resolution No.o Series of 2006, by a to (_
vote, that the City Council approve the land code amendment to amend Section
26.710.090(10)(a) and (b), Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the Residential Multi - Family
(R/MF) zone district to allow a non - historic detached residential or duplex dwelling on a
non - conforming lot of 5,000 sq. ft. or less land one Historic Transferable Development
Right (TDR); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the Code Amendment
proposal meets or exceeds all applicable amendment standards and that the approval of the
Code Amendment, is consistent With the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community
Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows:
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code,
the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that City Council approved the
requested land use code amendment to Land Use Code Section 26.710.090(10)(a) and
(b), Floor Area Ratio (FAR), for the Multi- Family Residential (R/MF) zone district to a
allow a non - historic detached residential or duplex dwelling on a non - conforming lot of
5,000 sq. ft. or less land one Historic Transferable Development Right (TDR) of 250
sq.ft., as noted in the following section:
Section 2:
Sections 26.710.090(10)(a) and (b), Floor Area Ratio(FAR), of the Aspen Municipal
Code shall be amended to read as follows:
Land Use Code Section 26.710.090(D)(a) and (b), Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
a. Detached residential and Duplex dwellings established prior to the adoption of
Ordinance 27, Series of 2004: 100% of the allowable floor area of an
equivalent -sized lot located in the R6 zone district. (See R6 Zone District.)
Receipt of a Development Order shall constitute the date the use was
established. Replacement after Demolition shall not effect a new
establishment date for the purposes of this section. City of Aspen Historic
Transferable Development Rights shall not be extinguished in this zone
district and shall not permit additional floor area except in the case of a lot of
less than 5,000 square feet. In this circumstance an Aspen Historic
Transferable Development Right certificate may be extinguished pursuant to
Section 26.535, Transferable Development Rights, and shall allow an
additional 250 square feet of Floor Area. No more than one Floor Area
increase shall be allowed per property. Properties listed on the Inventory of
Historic Sites and Structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area increase.
Non - conforming uses and structures shall not be eligible for this floor area
increase.
b. Detached residential and Duplex dwellings established after the adoption of
Ordinance 27, Series of 2004: 80% of the allowable floor area of an
equivalent -sized lot located in the R6 zone district. (See R6 Zone District.)
City of Aspen Historic Transferable Development Rights shall not be
extinguished in this zone district and shall not permit additional floor area
except in the case of a lot of less than 5,000 square feet. In this circumstance
an Aspen Historic Transferable Development Right certificate may be
extinguished pursuant to Section 26.535, Transferable Development Rights,
and shall allow an additional 250 square feet of Floor Area. No more than one
Floor Area increase shall be allowed per property. Properties listed on the
Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures shall not be eligible for this Floor
Area increase. Non - conforming uses and structures shall not be eligible for
this floor area increase.
Section 3:
All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the Code
Amendment approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation
presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby
incorporated in such Code Amendment approvals and the same shall be complied with as if
fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 4:
This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 5:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Approved by the Commission at its regular meeting on June 6, 2006.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
City Attomey Jasmine Tygre, Chair
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE CODE
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
Section 26.310.040, Text Amendment Standards of Review
In reviewing an amendment to the text of the Land Use Code or an amendment to the official
zone district map, the City Council and the Commission shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions
of this title.
Staff Finding:
Staff believes that the proposed amendment conflicts with the purpose of the nonconformities
chapter of the Land Use Code. The purpose of the nonconformities chapter is to, "permit
nonconformities to continue, but not allow nonconformities to be enlarged or expanded."
Additionally, the chapter is designed to, "curtail substantial investment in nonconformities in
order to preserve the integrity of the zone districts and the other provisions of this Title (the
Land Use Code) ". The ability to land additional floor area for a duplex or detached residential
dwelling would create additional, new investment in the nonconformity. Staff finds that this
criterion is not met.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the
Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding:
Staff does not believe that the proposed amendments are in conflict with the Aspen Area
Community Plan and would provide additional sites to land a Transferable Development
Right. The AACP section on historic preservation encourages the use of innovative ways
(such as the TDR program) to make preservation work in Aspen. Staff finds this criterion to
be met.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone
districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood
characteristics.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
Staff Finding:
These two criteria apply to rezoning applications and do not apply to this text amendment.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the
proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including,
but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply,
parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Staff Finding:
This criterion applies to rezoning applications and does not apply to this text amendment.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Finding:
Staff does not feel that the proposed code amendments will result in adverse impacts on the
natural environment. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
Staff Finding:
As was described in Staff's response to review Standard A above, the code amendment
pertains to only nonconforming lots of less than 5,000 square feet containing either a
detached residential dwelling or a duplex. Staff would question whether adding additional
floor area to a substandard lot is consistent with community character of Aspen. Staff does
not find this criterion to be met.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or
the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment
Staff Finding:
This criterion applies to rezoning applications and does not apply to this text amendment.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
Staff Finding:
Staff feels that the proposed code amendment, although providing for additional TDR
landing sites, will conflict with the intent of the Land Use Code with regard to
nonconformities. Staff finds that this criterion is not met.
Y-
ATTACHMENT 7
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: , Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 4. )JAY `1 , 200
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
I, c ( )A V\.J\C'Ci7 A ICJ (name, please print)
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suita}ile,
waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) in es wide
and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of lettersot
less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the _ day of
, 200, to and including the date and time of the public
hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300)et of the
property subject to the development application. The names and address of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County a3 they
appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in
any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision
of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such
revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use
regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other
sufficient legal description of and the notice to and listing of names and
addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall
be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public
inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing on such amendments.
Ai AIL
Signature
•
nci
The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was ackno ledged iefore ag vi ay
of l , 200 (Qby 11,1ra •
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
q
• My commjsr expires: , 4 I2T✓ 12 .0(/ I
Notary Public T —Pt. O'Bgq ,
PUBLIC NOT F. � ••q
RE: CRY CODE AMENDMENT TO A CERTAIN �. \' " 7' e• O G
SECTION OF THE LAND USE CODE REGARDING o L- E•
RECEIVER SITES FOR TRANSFERABLE DEVELOP-
MENT RIGHTS
NOTICE 5 HEREBY GIVEN that a public '
nearing will be held on Tuesday, June 6. 2006, at t 11 j
. meeting t beg at 4x90 pa before the Aspen
Pla g and Zoning Commission, Sisters City ..5, G ,
Room. City Hall 130 5. Galena St, Aspen, to con
101 apps stiAn nupe . 8 Dan 6 ATTACHMENTS: C : e3 L 1 - O O H it
1016 6. t n requests Avenue, p Aspen. CO The
applicant requests an amendment m the 11. me Land t G COA L O�
.
Use Code to allow for Historic Transferable De-
velopment Right Certificates to be received on a COPY OF THE PUBLICATION "Co mm +ss+on p ‘•� .. ∎ " �
lot of Tess than 5,000 sq. ft, in the Residential Mul- Expires
ti-Family (R/MID zone district. This re O 8/ 3
end Sections 26.710.040 D.l0.a. and b.,, Floor
ea Ratio. rOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN)
For further information, contact Jennifer Phelan
at the City of Aspen Comm ity Development De-
partment, 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO, (970) 429-
z]ss,;enndep8c;.asp ERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
/s/ Jasmine 'lygre, Chair
Aspen P and Zoning Commission ' BY MAIL
Published in the Aspen Times Weekly on May 21,
2006. (3728)
To: City of Aspen Community Development Department
RE: Proposed Code Amendment for landing of Historical TDR's
Planning and Zoning Commission and Staff,
This letter is a request for a Code Amendment Change. Specifically, we would like to
amend the restriction on the landing of historical TDR's in the R/MF Zone district for
single family homes on lots of less than 5,000 square feet.
Currently the landing of Historical TDR's is prohibited in the RMF Zone district. The
intent being that the additional FAR is to be landed on single family homes or duplexes;
and that those types of uses are (rightly) discouraged in the RMF Zone. This is of course
based on a conforming lot size of at least 9,000 ft. in RMF. However, there are a few lots
in the RMF district that are significantly undersized, and not suitable for multifamily
development. In this case the owner of a nonconforming, smaller lot, is unfairly
penalized with a 20% reduction in FAR for a single family home, compared to that in the
R -6 Zone District. We would like an amendment to the Historical TDR program
that would allow for the landing of a Historical TDR on a lot of less than 5,000
square feet in the RMF Zone District. We feel that this would more accurately portray
the intent of the program, and provide a community benefit by creating another avenue to
help in the success of the TDR program. The additional 250 ft. of FAR, is less than half
of what is taken away with the RMF zoning, and arguably less objectionable than adding
that 250 ft. to the full FAR of a home in the R -6 or R -15 Zone Districts.
Rather than strike or eliminate current language in the code we propose adding the
following language to the end of paragraphs 10.a. and 10.b. of Section 26.710.090 The
R/MF Zone District:
"; except in the case of a lot of less than 5,000 square feet. In this circumstance an
Aspen Historic Transferable Development Right certificate may be extinguished pursuant
to Section 26.535, Transferable Development Rights, and shall allow an additional 250
square feet of Floor Area. No more than one Floor Area increase shall be allowed per
property. Properties listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures shall not be
eligible for this Floor Area increase. Non - conforming uses and structures shall not be
eligible for this Floor Area increase".
Thank you for your consideration of this issue,
Dan Coleman
1016 East Hopkins Ave.
ATTACHMENT 2 —LAND USE APPLICATION
APPLICANT:
Name: D r1 Cderlul
Location:
(Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate)
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name: (.nt., tIell
Address: '4 ��' �. M O1 Y'MQ . - \ \ l- G� elk( <
- ((
Phone #: () q49 iz E Qi Cc) C'lZ�� �Tl�
PROJECT: 1 1 p /�
Name: � Os e_ Cock_ Rc .erarneAt
Address:
Phone #:
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
❑ Conditional Use El Conceptual PUD ❑ Conceptual Historic Devt.
❑ Special Review ❑ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ❑ Final Historic Development
❑ Design Review Appeal ❑ Conceptual SPA ❑ Minor Historic Devt.
❑ GMQS Allotment ❑ Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) ❑ Historic Demolition
❑ GMQS Exemption ❑ Subdivision ❑ Historic Designation
❑ ESA — 8040 Greenline, Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption (includes ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/
Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion
Mountain View Plane
❑ Lot Split ❑ Temporary Use ❑ Other:
El Lot Line Adjustment 181 Text/Map Amendment
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.)
n/A
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
Sea— A cCT tI keAer ce..` Code itai.ckAgr*
Have you attached the following? \\ FEES DUE: $ t 1b50, in Ve �r
❑ Pre - Application Conference Summ fxl ary '
2' Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement
❑ Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form 1-1/41'
u Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards
All plans that are larger than 8.5" x 11" must be folded and a floppy disk with an electronic copy of all written
text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application.
RETAIN FOR PEFW.AH,ENT RECOI1
EXHIBIT A
REVIEW CRITERIA
REZONING
REVIEW CRITERIA
In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the Planning and Zoning
Commission and City Council shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable
portions of this title.
We do not feel this minor Code Amendment is in conflict with the underlying zoning.
Single Family home is an allowed use in this Zone district.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of
the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
We believe that this code change will allow for a better and less onerous distribution of
the 250 ft. of FAR, onto a property that has had it's FAR reduced by roughly 500 ft.
(depending on the actual lot size); which is consistent with the design objectives in the
AACP.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding
zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and
neighborhood characteristics.
There are numerous uses currently in the RMF; including Multi family, duplex and single
family home. Because of the diminutive size of a less than 5,000 ft. lot, multi - family
development is not practical. The FAR, and subsequent massing, will still be less than a
multi - family development in the neighborhood.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road
safety.
The additional square feet should have no negative impact on traffic or road safety.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in demands on public facilities, and whether the extent to which
the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities,
including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities,
water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical
facilities.
There will not be an increase in the demand for public facilities as a result of the
proposed request.
•
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
We do not believe that the proposed minor code amendment application would result in
significant adverse impacts on the environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with
the community character in the City of Aspen.
Again, these lots are penalized for being nonconforming (too small) in size, to adequately
support a multi - family project; and a single family home with FAR that is still less than
what is allowed in the R -6 or R -15 zone districts is totally compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject
parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed
amendment.
Yes, the recent reduction in FAR for a single family home in the RMF (to promote
multi- family development) has negatively affected these smaller, non - conforming
lots. In addition the City of Aspen Histoprical TDR program has provided an
avenue to "buy back" a portion of that FAR, and in turn help[ support the TDR
program.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
We do not believe this would be in conflict with any public interest. In fact, by helping to
support the Historical TDR program, this amendment proposal would further the stated
values of the Community.
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Agreement for Payment off City of Aspen Development Application Fees
CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and L br\ c . \ertic3ll
(hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for
_moo— c n ,� l�. cil'ort 00&_. a,nrad r�
� t
(hereinafter, 7T1 E PROJECT). '
2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 57 (Series of 2000)
establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent
to a determination of application completeness.
3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it
is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application.
APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an
initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis.
APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he
will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the
CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty
of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application.
4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete
processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning
Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings
are paid in full prior to decision.
5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect
full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the
amount of $ 1 . - which is for c hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual
recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse
the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review at a rate of $220.00
per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date.
APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and
in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid.
CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT 11
By: By: �oKl E�Y2Mof'•
Chris Bendon
Community Development Director Date: CUCJi.\ ` 1 S^ Z.OD
Bill To Mailing Address and Telephone Number:
C ., I'LtY,CJ .. nun, ` vu C h10n 1 \ C.
go "s3 oc' "i Z9'
g:\support\forms \agrpayas.doc o CJyCJId C-d € a
02/01/06
RETAIN FOR PER/WENT REDO ,1
e•
File €dIt Record Navigate Fgrm Reporgs Format lab Ile 1p
a,
Routing Hatay j Qonddimu I Sub Peres 1 Yaluation I Pt4*c Commend Custom«Reguest j AttacF nts
Man j Routing Status I Arch /Eng I Parcels j Custom Fields j Feel Fee Summary ! Actions
Pemd Type laski 'Aspen Land Use 2004 Pena tt 0077,2a16ASLU
_
Address 1O ZERO 11 Apt/5ute� _......_.....__ ___......_....
Cey ASPEN State: Zip 81611
Perrritlrtamatron _ _. _ ...
Master Permit — Routing Queue ]aslu 6 Appied IO2/17/2006
Project 1 Statue laetcEn9 Approved {
7� `-'-- J :.
Desaphon_PROPOSEO CODE AMENDMENT Issued 1
Subed ERIC COHEN 948-3288 -- rmbl Clock RUrmy Days (..._._0 Expires 02/122007
1 Visible on the web? Perm ID- i 37509
Last Name jCOLEMAN BROS CONSTR i Fed Name 1 PO BOX 729
CARBONDALE CO 81623
Phone (970) X38172
fir' Owner Is Applicant?
Applicant .. _: _.
_____
Last Name jCOLEMAN BROS CONSTR `,t1 First Name PO BOX 729
CARBONDALE CO 81623
Peon 4970196343172 Cusl # 126733 1 v
1.
Enter the omit type cafe View Record 2 of 2
c chi
\ \\